Perla C. Bautista vs Board of Energy

PERLA C. BAUTISTA, GREATER MANILA FEDERATION OF JEEPNEY OPERATORS & DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, petitioners,
vs.
BOARD OF ENERGY (BOE), MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, respondents.

G.R. No. 75016 January 13, 1989

Page 135 sa book

Facts:

MERALCO filed with BOE a verified application for an upward revision of its rates. The application alleged among others, that MERALCO suffered net losses of P231.2 million in 1984 and P70.4 million in 1985 due to the devaluation of the peso, the drop in kilowatt sales, limited access to credit, high financing cost and charges of operations and maintenance and the deterioration of system loss. The application averred that the proposed rate schedule is an increase of 9.5 centavos per kilowatt hour in MERALCO's basic distribution charge which is 5.25% of the March 1986 average billing rate. However, consumptions up to 130 kilowatt hours per month of residential customers, and up to 70 kilowatt hours of small commercial customers, and consumptions of government-owned hospitals and public street lighting services are not affected by the increase.

In the same petition, MERALCO prayed for an ex parte provisional approval of the proposed rates anchored on the reasons that under its existing rate schedules, it expects to incur a total cash deficit from its 1986 operations in the amount of P918,317,000.00; that its operating income is not enough to cover the payment of the interests and amortization of its foreign loan, and that it is unable to maintain its distribution system to provide safe and efficient service. Attached to the petition are the affidavits of its key officers with supporting duly certified schedules, computations, documents and papers.

Perla C. Bautista and Greater Manila Federation of Jeepney Operators and Drivers Association, filed an "Opposition to the Application for the Increase in Rates" and prayed that no provisional approval should be granted by the BOE. They alleged that they, together with others similarly situated, are adversely affected by the increase in rates of MERALCO and that the increase in rates is exorbitant and unreasonable as the prices of petroleum products had already gone down .In an Order, the BOE provisionally approved MERALCO's revised rate schedules without hearing. Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the aforesaid order stating that they were not afforded the opportunity to be heard.

Issue: Whether or not the Board of Energy acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it provisionally approved ex-parte the application for increase in rates of MERALCO

Held:

The petition is devoid of merit.

The records show that the issue has become moot and academic as MERALCO decreased its rate by 12.6 centavos per kilowatt hour in its electric, bills for August 1986, apart from a 4.2 centavo cut per kilowatt-hour for September 1986.

Assuming that this case has not yet become moot, it is beyond dispute that when BOE provisionally authorized private respondent's application without hearing, it merely exercised a prerogative granted to it by law.

Section 12 of RA 6173, as amended by Section 11 of PD 1128 pertinently reads:

The Commission may, upon the filing of an application, petition or complaint or at any stage thereafter, and without prior hearing, on the basis of supporting papers duly verified or authenticated, grant provisional relief on motion of a party in the case or on its own initiative, without prejudice to a final decision after hearing, should the Commission find that the pleadings, together with such affidavits documents and other evidence which may be submitted in support of the motion, substantially support the provisional order.

The Court has upheld the authority of regulatory boards like the Energy Regulatory Board to grant provisional relief upon the filing of an application, petition or complaint or at any stage thereafter, and without the need of prior hearing, but it shall call a hearing thereon within thirty days thereafter for the determination of its final decision. The order granting Such provisional relief, however, must be based upon substantial evidence — supporting papers duly verified or authenticated, and is without prejudice to rendition of a final decision after hearing.. In the case at bar, petitioners were given the opportunity to air their side and put to test the reasonableness of the revised rate schedules applied for during the hearings for the determination of the principal relief sought. The allegations, therefore, that due process had been denied to the petitioners are without basis, they themselves having participated at the hearing for the final determination of the application of MERALCO by the BOE.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, this petition is hereby DISMISSED.